Part 1: Putin; The Last American

Putin; The Last American - The Global Power Dynamics of Georgia in the Context of the Russia-Ukraine War (1/4)

Putin: "The Last American" - Expansion and Analysis

The geopolitics of the 21st century represent an intricate interplay between historical doctrines, regional conflicts, and the influence of global superpowers[1]. Countries like Georgia and Ukraine are emblematic of this struggle, situated at the crossroads of great-power competition and internal political challenges. As Vladimir Putin’s Russia seeks to maintain influence in the post-Soviet space, the resurgence of Donald Trump in the U.S. political landscape adds another dimension to these conflicts. Georgia, caught in this geopolitical crossfire, embodies the complexities of a small nation navigating between East and West.

This analysis delves into the dynamics of Putin’s policies, Western responses, and the specific challenges faced by Georgia as it contemplates a path forward.

Putin as a Practitioner of Western Doctrines

Putin’s geopolitical strategies[2] bear a striking resemblance to the interventionist policies employed by the United States during the Cold War. Just as the U.S. sought to establish dominance in its "backyard" through the Monroe Doctrine (1823), Russia under Putin views the post-Soviet space as critical to its national security.

• American Parallel: The Monroe Doctrine opposed European influence in the Western Hemisphere, providing the U.S. with justification for decades of intervention in Latin America.

• Russian Adaptation: Putin’s policies reflect a similar doctrine, perceiving NATO expansion and Western influence in former Soviet states as existential threats.

Imperial Precedents: From Practice to Doctrine

The concept of maintaining a "sphere of influence" wasn't unique to American foreign policy – it was a common practice among imperial powers. The Russian Empire, in particular, had long exercised control over its neighboring regions through various means of intervention and influence:

• The Great Game (19th century): Russia competed with British India for control over Central Asia, using military pressure, diplomatic maneuvering, and economic leverage to maintain its influence.[3]

• Pan-Slavism: The Russian Empire often justified its interventions in Eastern Europe and the Balkans through the ideology of protecting Slavic populations, most notably seen in its involvement in the Balkans during the 19th century.[4]

• The Ottoman Frontier: Russia repeatedly intervened in Ottoman affairs, particularly concerning Christian populations, as seen in the Russo-Turkish Wars.

However, what distinguished the American approach was its formal codification through the Monroe Doctrine. While other empires practiced similar policies of regional dominance, the United States transformed these implicit imperial practices into an explicit, coherent foreign policy doctrine. This systematization provided a clear framework for A. defining legitimate spheres of influence. B establishing criteria for intervention C. creating diplomatic and legal justifications for regional hegemony

This American innovation in formalizing imperial practice helps explain why Putin's current approach more closely mirrors U.S. policy than traditional Russian imperial methods – he has adopted not just the practice of regional domination, but the American approach of doctrinally justifying and systematizing it.

---

Historical Examples of U.S. Interventions

The U.S.’s “backyard doctrine” was operationalized through a series of interventions designed to secure its geopolitical interests[5].

1. Guatemala (1954):

• Context: President Jacobo Árbenz enacted land reforms that challenged U.S. corporate interests (United Fruit Company)[6].

• Action: The CIA organized a coup, replacing Árbenz with a pro-American regime.

• Impact: Decades of instability and civil war ensued.

2. Cuba (1959-1961):

• Context: Fidel Castro’s rise and alignment with the Soviet Union alarmed the U.S.

• Action: The Bay of Pigs invasion (1961) failed, followed by numerous assassination attempts on Castro.

• Impact: The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and long-standing hostility shaped U.S.-Cuban relations.

3. Chile (1973):

• Context: Socialist President Salvador Allende’s policies were perceived as anti-American.

• Action: The CIA supported a coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power.

• Impact: Pinochet’s dictatorship, supported by the U.S., led to widespread human rights violations.

4. Nicaragua (1980-1990):

• Context: The pro-communist Sandinista government clashed with U.S. interests.

• Action: The U.S. funded Contra rebels in the controversial "Iran-Contra" affair.

• Impact: A prolonged civil war destabilized Nicaragua.

---

Putin’s Doctrine Adapted to the 21st Century

Putin employs a similar approach in the post-Soviet sphere, leveraging both hard and soft power to maintain influence.

1. Georgia (2008):

• Following Georgia’s aspirations to join NATO, Russia invaded under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians[7].

2. Ukraine (2014):

• After the pro-Western Maidan protests, Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatists in Eastern Ukraine.[8]

3. Ukraine (2022):

• In a full-scale invasion, Putin sought to prevent Ukraine from aligning with NATO, framing it as a security imperative.

---

Comparison of Methods

U.S. (Cold War):

• Primary Tools: Economic sanctions, covert actions

• Justifications: Containment of communism

• Examples: Latin America interventions

Putin (Post-Soviet Space):

• Primary Tools: Military invasions, political manipulation[9]

• Justifications: Defense against NATO and Western encroachment

• Examples: Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine
  

Concluding Thoughts

Putin's emulation of American interventionist tactics reveals a deeper irony in contemporary geopolitics. While loudly denouncing American hegemony and unilateralism, he has become perhaps the most dedicated student of U.S. Cold War methodologies. His approach in the post-Soviet space – from military interventions and proxy warfare to the cultivation of separatist movements and the formalization of spheres of influence – demonstrates not just tactical copying but a profound internalization of American great-power doctrine.

Yet there's a crucial distinction that makes Putin "the last American" rather than simply another great power leader: he is attempting to implement mid-20th century American interventionist policies in a 21st century multipolar world. While the United States developed these tactics in a bipolar international system where such methods could be effectively deployed against a single primary adversary, Putin must navigate a far more complex landscape of competing powers, interconnected economies, and instant global communication. This temporal disconnect – using yesterday's tactics in today's world – may ultimately prove to be the greatest challenge to his adaptation of the American interventionist playbook.

---

[1] Kissinger, World Order

[2] Hill & Gaddy, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin

[3] Cooley, Great Games, Local Rules

[4] Gvosdev, Russian Foreign Policy

[5] LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions

[6] Gaddis, Strategies of Containment

[7] De Waal, The Caucasus: An Introduction

[8] Allison, "Russian 'Deniable' Intervention in Ukraine"

[9] Anne Peters (2019) "Passportization: Risks for International Law and Stability - The Case of Russia"